Interesting one this. The dreadful woman I am dealing with at the LGO tells me they will not have someone external to their team review their third provisional judgment before final determination because, and I quote:
"If you are dissatisfied with that decision you will be able to obtain a review. This will be conducted internally by an Assistant Ombudsman or Senior Investigator with no previous involvement in the case."
Clearly, this is not true. There is a right to complain about the decision but no right to an internal review of the decision as she suggests. Indeed, the LGO's website makes it quite clear that this will only take place if there is new evidence.
I have asked for someone else to make the final determination because her team have issued 3 judgments already - the first 2 rejected maladministration, the third accepted a small amount of maladministration. All on the same evidence.
So after 3 judgments and 12 months of arguing, they have moved position a little. But this just begs a series of questions: why did you fail to acknowledge maladministration a year ago? Why have I had to go to this time and expense? What would have happened had your ruled on maladministration properly a year ago? Would the LA really have sought a vexatious determination against me then? They used the LGO's determination as evidence against me!
It is entirely inappropriate for the same team to keep reviewing things in the circumstances but it's shocking for a senior LGO person to suggest final decisions are subject to an internal appeal as of right.